BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Thomas Jaki

Thomas Jaki contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
ApplicationsMethodologyQuantitative MethodsPopulations and Evolution

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 21 - EmergingVerification L1Unclaimed author
9works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

9 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Backfilling Cohorts in Phase I Dose-Escalation Studies

The use of `backfilling', assigning additional patients to doses deemed safe, in phase I dose-escalation studies has been used in practice to collect additional information on the safety profile, pharmacokinetics and activity of a drug. These additional patients help ensure that the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) is reliably estimated and give additional information in order to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). In this paper, we study the effect of employing backfilling in a phase I trial on the estimation of the MTD and the duration of the study. We consider the situation where only one cycle of follow-up is used for escalation as well as the case where there may be delayed onset toxicities. We find that, over a range of scenarios, there is an increase in the proportion of correct selections and a notable reduction in the trial duration at the cost of more patients required in the study.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Bayesian sample size determination in basket trials borrowing information between subsets

Basket trials are increasingly used for the simultaneous evaluation of a new treatment in various patient subgroups under one overarching protocol. We propose a Bayesian approach to sample size determination in basket trials that permit borrowing of information between commensurate subsets. Specifically, we consider a randomised basket trial design where patients are randomly assigned to the new treatment or a control within each trial subset (`subtrial' for short). Closed-form sample size formulae are derived to ensure each subtrial has a specified chance of correctly deciding whether the new treatment is superior to or not better than the control by some clinically relevant difference. Given pre-specified levels of pairwise (in)commensurability, the subtrial sample sizes are solved simultaneously. The proposed Bayesian approach resembles the frequentist formulation of the problem in yielding comparable sample sizes for circumstances of no borrowing. When borrowing is enabled between commensurate subtrials, a considerably smaller trial sample size is required compared to the widely implemented approach of no borrowing. We illustrate the use of our sample size formulae with two examples based on real basket trials. A comprehensive simulation study further shows that the proposed methodology can maintain the true positive and false positive rates at desired levels.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Dose Finding Studies for Therapies with Late-Onset Safety and Efficacy Outcomes

In Phase I/II dose-finding trials, the objective is to find the Optimal Biological Dose (OBD), a dose that is both safe and efficacious that maximises some optimality criterion based on safety and efficacy. This is further complicated when the investigated treatment consists of multiple cycles of therapy, and both toxicity and efficacy outcomes may occur at any point throughout the follow up of multiple cycles. In this work we present the Joint TITE-CRM, a model-based design for late onset toxicities and efficacies based on the well-known TITE-CRM. It is found to be superior to both currently available alternative designs that account for late onset bivariate outcomes; a model-assisted method and a bivariate survival design, as well as being both intuitive and computationally feasible.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Online error control for platform trials

Platform trials evaluate multiple experimental treatments under a single master protocol, where new treatment arms are added to the trial over time. Given the multiple treatment comparisons, there is the potential for inflation of the overall type I error rate, which is complicated by the fact that the hypotheses are tested at different times and are not all necessarily pre-specified. Online error control methodology provides a possible solution to the problem of multiplicity for platform trials where a relatively large number of hypotheses are expected to be tested over time. In the online testing framework, hypotheses are tested in a sequential manner, where at each time-step an analyst decides whether to reject the current null hypothesis without knowledge of future tests but based solely on past decisions. Methodology has recently been developed for online control of the false discovery rate as well as the familywise error rate (FWER). In this paper, we describe how to apply online error control to the platform trial setting, present extensive simulation results, and give some recommendations for the use of this new methodology in practice. We show that the algorithms for online error rate control can have a substantially lower FWER than uncorrected testing, while still achieving noticeable gains in power when compared with the use of a Bonferroni procedure. We also illustrate how online error control would have impacted a currently ongoing platform trial.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs

Adaptive designs for clinical trials permit alterations to a study in response to accumulating data in order to make trials more flexible, ethical and efficient. These benefits are achieved while preserving the integrity and validity of the trial, through the pre-specification and proper adjustment for the possible alterations during the course of the trial. Despite much research in the statistical literature highlighting the potential advantages of adaptive designs over traditional fixed designs, the uptake of such methods in clinical research has been slow. One major reason for this is that different adaptations to trial designs, as well as their advantages and limitations, remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical community. The aim of this paper is to clarify where adaptive designs can be used to address specific questions of scientific interest; we introduce the main features of adaptive designs and commonly used terminology, highlighting their utility and pitfalls, and illustrate their use through case studies of adaptive trials ranging from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory Phase III studies.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Bayesian sample size determination using commensurate priors to leverage pre-experimental data

This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups. We assume the experimental data will be analysed in the Bayesian framework, where pre-experimental information from multiple sources can be represented into robust priors. In particular, such robust priors account for preliminary belief about the pairwise commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments, to permit flexible borrowing of information. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances where the common variance in the new experiment is known or unknown. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our Bayesian sample size formulae in the setting of designing a clinical trial. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with elicitation of expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this paper we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive designs.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Endpoints for randomized controlled clinical trials for COVID-19 treatments

Introduction: Endpoint choice for randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 is complex. A new disease brings many uncertainties, but trials must start rapidly. COVID-19 is heterogeneous, ranging from mild disease that improves within days to critical disease that can last weeks and can end in death. While improvement in mortality would provide unquestionable evidence about clinical significance of a treatment, sample sizes for a study evaluating mortality are large and may be impractical. Furthermore, patient states in between "cure" and "death" represent meaningful distinctions. Clinical severity scores have been proposed as an alternative. However, the appropriate summary measure for severity scores has been the subject of debate, particularly in relating to the uncertainty about the time-course of COVID-19. Outcomes measured at fixed time-points may risk missing the time of clinical benefit. An endpoint such as time-to-improvement (or recovery), avoids the timing problem. However, some have argued that power losses will result from reducing the ordinal scale to a binary state of "recovered" vs "not recovered." Methods: We evaluate statistical power for possible trial endpoints for COVID-19 treatment trials using simulation models and data from two recent COVID-19 treatment trials. Results: Power for fixed-time point methods depends heavily on the time selected for evaluation. Time-to-improvement (or recovery) analyses do not specify a time-point. Time-to-event approaches have reasonable statistical power, even when compared to a fixed time-point method evaluated at the optimal time. Discussion: Time-to-event analyses methods have advantages in the COVID-19 setting, unless the optimal time for evaluating treatment effect is known in advance. Even when the optimal time is known, a time-to-event approach may increase power for interim analyses.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

A Bayesian hierarchical model for bridging across patient subgroups in phase I clinical trials with animal data

Incorporating preclinical animal data, which can be regarded as a special kind of historical data, into phase I clinical trials can improve decision making when very little about human toxicity is known. In this paper, we develop a robust hierarchical modelling approach to leverage animal data into new phase I clinical trials, where we bridge across non-overlapping, potentially heterogeneous patient subgroups. Translation parameters are used to bring both historical and contemporary data onto a common dosing scale. This leads to feasible exchangeability assumptions that the parameter vectors, which underpin the dose-toxicity relationship per study, are assumed to be drawn from a common distribution. Moreover, human dose-toxicity parameter vectors are assumed to be exchangeable either with the standardised, animal study-specific parameter vectors, or between themselves. Possibility of non-exchangeability for each parameter vector is considered to avoid inferences for extreme subgroups being overly influenced by the other. We illustrate the proposed approach with several trial data examples, and evaluate the operating characteristics of our model compared with several alternatives in a simulation study. Numerical results show that our approach yields robust inferences in circumstances, where data from multiple sources are inconsistent and/or the bridging assumptions are incorrect.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access